PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS 


FT 

HEARINGS 

BEFORE 

. Cflrw h l (to-*-a- < 

THE COMMITTEE ON 
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION u 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS 
SECOND SESSION 


MEADE 

JK 1801 
1920 
. A13 
Copy 4 


FEBRUARY 28, 1920 


STATEMENTS OF 

MRS. MAUD WOOD PARK 
HON. JOHN JACOB ROGERS 


v 4'.« 

-ON 





172210 


WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
1920 


















COMMITTEE OX IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION. 

House of Representatives. 

SIXTY-SIXTH CONGRESS. 


ALBERT JOHNSON, Washington, Chairman. 


ISAAC SIEGEL, New York. 
HAROLD KNUTSON, Minnesota. 
ROSCOE C. MCCULLOCH, Ohio. 
J. WILL TAYLOR, Tennessee. 
JOHN C. KLECZKA, Wisconsin. 
WILLIAM N. VAILE, Colorado. 
HAYES B. WHITE, Kansas. 
KING SWOPE, Kentucky. 


ADOLPH J. SABATH, Illinois. 
JOHN E. RAKER, California. 
RILEY J. WILSON, Louisiana. 
BENJAMIN F. WELTY, Ohio. 
JOHN C. BOX, Texas. 

L. B. RAINEY, Alabama. 


P. F. Snyder, Clerk. 


brary of cor 

FEB-5 1 


















PROPOSED CHARGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


Committee on Immigration and Naturalization, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, I). C., Saturday, February 28,1920. 

The committee this day met, Hon. Albert Johnson (chairman) pre¬ 
siding. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in order. The committee 
will begin the preliminary consideration of various bills relating to 
the rights of women in the United States and matters pertaining to 
the naturalization of women. These bills are the Raker bill (H. R. 
10374), the Anthony bill (H. R. 10435), and the Rogers bill (H. R. 
T2749). For the moment we will give attention to the Rogers bill. 

There is present this morning Mrs. Maud Wood Park, who has 
some views on the subjects covered in some of these bills, and I 
think the committee would be glad to hear a general statement from 
her. 

STATEMENT OF MRS. MAUD WOOD PARK, CHAIRMAN NATIONAL 

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS, 40 COMMONWEALTH AVENUE, 

BOSTON, MASS. 

Mrs. Park. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I take 
advantage of the opportunity which you kindly offered me yesterday 
to appear before this committee, because at the first annual conven¬ 
tion of our organization in Chicago last week, on February 17, our 
association, at the request of the chairman of its committee on Amer¬ 
ican citizenship, indorsed House resolution 10404, on the ground that 
the legislation tended to make conditions of naturalization for aliens 
more just and more dignified; on that general ground, and in a 
general way, the indorsement of the association was given to that 
measure. 

In connection with the report of the same committee, and in con¬ 
nection with the report of another committee, our committee on the 
equalization of laws concerning women, there came in a general state¬ 
ment of principles, which has been the statement of principles of the 
association for a good many years—that the citizenship of women 
should be an independent citizenship. Therefore, the chairman of 
our committee telegraphed Mr. Crist, requesting that certain changes 
should be embodied in House resolution 10404. At the time that 
Mrs. Bagley telegraphed it was not certain that I would be able to 
come to Washington, but when it was found that I was coming she 
asked me to see Mr. Crist and learn what the situation was. 

In everything that I shall say to you I shall speak as a layman in 
law and international questions. I have no knowledge of legal 
phraseology, and I do not want anything I may say to be taken to 

3 



4 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


apply to particular technical phrases. I shall simply state to you the 
attitude of our association and our hope that you will consider that 
attitude in drafting the final form which this bill may take. I 
therefore wish to say that our general principle is that the citizen¬ 
ship of women should be independent of marital relations. 

We realize, Mr. Chairman, that at this time in particular any 
attempt to carry that principle into a law which did not consider 
international regulations might involve us in complications that 
would be very undesirable, and therefore in discussion on the floor 
in regard to our general principle it was understood that we should 
not press for the adoption of that general principle in any form that 
would involve international complications, but we felt the State 
Department should be consulted as to the possible outcome of any 
legislation that might seem to embody our principle. 

When I came to Washington I found that Mr. Rogers had intro¬ 
duced a bill the day before, about which we knew nothing at the 
time, and again speaking as a layman in legal and international 
matters, it seems to me that the bill which Mr. Rogers has brought 
in (H. R. 12749) does very largely embody in it the advantages, and 
what we want to avoid—the possible disadvantages—because it re¬ 
fers only to the citizenship of women while they remain in this 
country. It avoids the disadvantage which we protest against al¬ 
ways, the easier naturalization for alien men than for alien women. 
We believe that naturalization should not be made easier for alien 
men than it is for alien women. We also believe that American 
women should not be forced to lose their citizenship under circum¬ 
stances under w T hich American men would not lose their citizenship, 
on account of the fact of marriage, but realizing that if the woman 
were to go abroad there might be complications, I personally am 
very glad to see that this bill of Mr. Rogers applies both to circum¬ 
stances when women remain in this country- 

The Chairman. Let me read the provisions of the Rogers bill for 
the record (H. R, 12749) : 

That no woman who shall be an American citizen and a resident of the 
United States and who marries an alien on or after the date when the joint 
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of 
suffrage to women, having been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths 
of the several States, shall have become valid to all intents and purposes as a 
part of the Constitution, shall be deemed, so long as she continues to be a 
resident of the United States, to have surrendered, forfeited, or impaired her 
American citizenship by the fact of such marriage; and no alien woman who 
marries an American citizen on or after said date shall be deemed to have ac¬ 
quired American citizenship by the fact of such marriage. 

Mrs. Park. That, as I say, seems to me to embody the advantages 
of the situation without the disadvantages. 

There is a further suggested change which Mr. Crist has been good 
enough to phrase for use, which makes it possible for an alien woman 
married to an unnaturalized alien in this country, to herself become 
naturalized, provided her husband is too lazy or too neglectful to do 
so, or provided he can not be found. We know, of course, from the 
immigration records, that there are many cases where the husbands 
disappear after they get here, and the wives may follow them to 
this country and find their husbands missing, and the further sug¬ 
gestion which Mr. Crist has made—I do not know whether you have 
the words, or not, Mr. Chairman—seems to be valuable in that con- 



PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 5 

nection as supplementing the suggestions contained in Mr. Rogers's 

bill. 

The Chairman. The proposal is as follows: 

Any woman not a citizen of the United States, who may herself he lawfully 
naturalized, whose husband refuses to apply for Ameircan citizenship, or is 
incapacitated from becoming naturalized, or the whereabouts of whose husband 
is unknown, may herself declare her intention to become a citizen of the United 
States, and on tiling her petition for naturalization in accordance with the 
requirement of the naturalization law be admitted to citizenship upon the com¬ 
pliance with the other provisions of the naturalization law. 

Mr. A aile. Pardon me a moment, Mr. Chairman. Did we not 
cover this subject in H. R. 10404, on page 8? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Vaile. If Mrs. Park is not familiar with the provision, per¬ 
haps she may want to discuss it. It is contained in the bill now 
pending. 

Mr. Raker. The organization which Mrs. Park represents has al¬ 
ready in substance adopted this bill. 

Mrs. Park. We have indorsed the principles of that bill, Mr. Chair¬ 
man. 

Mr. Raker. Although Mrs. Park has discussed another matter, she 
has not discussed this provision, and I am going to ask her if this 
provision is not more just than any that has been suggested—the one 
in the bill now. 

Mrs. Park. No; I can not quite agree with you, Judge Raker, 
about that, because I think it does not in any sense provide for the 
independent citizenship of women, in which we believe. 

The Chairman. Let me read this, on page 8 of H. R. 10404, which 
bill, however, has been reintroduced with a new number: 

Any woman who is now married to a citizen of the United States, and who 
might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen: Provided, That 
any alien woman who shall hereafter be married to a citizen of the United 
States shall not be deemed a citizen until she has taken the oath of allegiance 
provided in the third subdivision of this section. The wife of any alien here 
after naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the United States upon taking the 
said oath of allegiance: Provided, That nothing contained in this subdivision 
shall be construed to affect the rights and privileges of citizenship acquired 
prior to the approval of this act. 

Mrs. Park. Mr. Chairman, that seems to me to apply only in part 
to the question, because it does not require the same process of 
naturalization from the woman that is required from the man. She 
takes the oath of allegiance, but there is a good deal more than the 
oath of allegiance required in the naturalization of an alien man, 
and therefore it seems to me to go only part way on the road, 
whereas Mr. Rogers’s provision would go the whole way. 

The Chairman. We are interested in the proposition presented by 
you, but you come before this committee, which has been working 
for some time on this problem of providing some just scheme of 
naturalization, and you state that von come from an organization 
of women voters, and that you want full rights for women, but that 
you do not want to run into any international complications. 

Mrs. Park. Precisely, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. So you find yourself just exactly where this com¬ 
mittee finds itself, after a long struggle running back several years. 
Do you know of any way to correct it? Will the Rogers bill do so? 


6 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


Mrs. Park. It seems to me it would. As I told you, I am not 
speaking as a lawyer or authority on international relations, but the 
Rogers bill, which was not before our convention because it was not 
brought in until February 25, and our convention ended on the 19th. 

The Chairman. Would you recommend that this committee under¬ 
take to report out a bill in the phraseology of the Rogers bill, pro¬ 
viding that this shall be done when suffrage is finally ratified by 
three-fourths of the States, when in all probability suffrage will be 
ratified before we can get this bill on the calendar? 

Mrs. Park. I should be willing to leave the question of the techni¬ 
cal wording entirely to the committee. I felt only that if your com¬ 
mittee understood our point of view it would perhaps look at Mr. 
Rogers’s bill with a little more consideration from the woman’s point 
of view, as well as from'Mr. Rogers’s own point of view, which he is 
amply able to present. 

Mr. Raker. Have you thought about this? You have been dis¬ 
cussing intermarriage. Suppose here is an American woman who 
marries an alien, and remains in the United States after her mar¬ 
riage* say a year, and then she goes to France. She is an American 
citizen while she remains here, and her husband is an alien, but she 
takes the boat and goes to France, and when she gets over there she 
is a French woman. She stays there six months or a year and she 
comes back here and then she is an American citizen. Do you think 
we ought to allow her to float like that ? 

Mrs. Park. No; my understanding is that Mr. Rogers’s bill refers 
to the matter of residence in the United States. Any of us may go 
to Europe for a few months and yet retain our residence in the 
United States. 

Mr. Vaile. I do not think Mr. Rogers’s bill is quite subject to the 
criticism you made, Mr. Raker, because it provides that no woman, 
so long as she continues to be a resident of the United States, shall be 
deemed to have surrendered, forfeited, or impaired her American 
citizenship. Therefore an interruption of residence such as you 
suggested would come within the provision. If she does not con¬ 
tinue to be a resident, she does forfeit her citizenship, even though 
she may afterwards resume her residence; is that your idea, Mr. 
Rogers ? 

Mr. Rogers. Precisely. 

The Chairman. Before we hear Mr. Rogers, you spoke of some 
suggestions that your organization desired to make on H. R. 10104. 

Mrs. Park. No; they are embodied in the section I have already 
spoken of and the phraseology of the second section, and those in¬ 
sertions which Mr. Crist w T as good enough to phrase. I think all our 
suggestions are embodied thus far, but if I may, in conclusion. I 
would just like to complete the four points I want to make: One, 
that our organization indorsed H. R. 10404, on the ground that it 
contains conditions of naturalization more just and more dignified, 
and the practical experience of our workings in Americanization is 
that the present naturalization system is neither just nor dignified 
in its application in a great many of the States. Therefore, on that 
ground, Mr. Chairman, our indorsement was given. On the same 
day that the indorsement was given our principle of the independent 
citizenship of women was reaffirmed, and in the discussion with 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 7 

regard to the reaffirmance of that principle we stated that we did not 
wish to press the principle at this moment to any point which would 
involve us in international complications. 

My fourth point is that we have come here to indorse this bill, 
which, with the addition, at least, to the section which Mr. Crist sug¬ 
gested, seems to cover our situation. I am glad to be able to present 
that to you and the committee, and I thank you very much for the 
opportunity of doing so. 

Mr. Raker. The suggestion made by Mr. Crist is. already in the 
law now, is it not, in substance? In other words, a married woman, 
no matter where her husband is, whether lost or abandoned, or other¬ 
wise, can immediately apply for citizenship and be naturalized, 
despite her marriage? 

Mrs. Park. I can not answer that question as to whether it is 
actually in the law in that form now. It was not my understanding 
that it was. 

Mr. Raker. Is not that the law ? It struck me that it was, in the 
one that I read this morning, that any alien married woman can 
apply for citizenship and become naturalized. 

Mr. Crist. No, sir; Mr. Chairman, there are court decisions 
against that. 

Mr. Raker. Where is there any law that prohibits her from being 
naturalized ? 

Mr. Siegel. Is citizenship limited to the male ? 

Mr. Crist. Yes. 

Mr. Siegel. Where; in the statute ? 

Mr. Crist. Yes. 

Mr. Raker. Can not an alien married woman,- after she comes 
here, file her petition for naturalization and become naturalized just 
like a man ? 

Mrs. Park. My understanding is that a married woman takes 
her citizenship from her husband. In that case, she remains an 
alien, does she not? 

Mr. Crist. There are court decisions holding that the naturaliza¬ 
tion law does not provide for the naturalization of a woman inde¬ 
pendent of her husband, or independently at all. There is one ex¬ 
ception to that, where an act was recently passed that permitted a 
woman whose husband became insane after declaring his intention, 
to herself proceed to become a citizen on his declaration, if he held a 
homestead entry. That is the act of February 24, 1911 (36 Stat. L., 
pt. 1, p. 929.) 

The only other provision which refers to a woman being natural¬ 
ized is found in the sixth subdivision of section 4, which says: 

When any alien who has declared his intention of becoming a citizen of 
the United States dies before he is actually naturalized, the widow and minor 
children of such alien may, by complying with the other provision of this act, 
be naturalized without making any declaration of intention. 

Inasmuch as the whole of naturalization is statute law in this 
country, they have applied the rules of common law in construing 
the application of a woman for citizenship, whose husband is living, 
and who is an alien. The case of in re Riondo, which was decided 
in New York State in 1902, is followed by the courts all over the 
United States. Her husband was a Spanish subject, and she applied 


8 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


for citizenship independently of him, and the court, in a lengthy 
decision, denied her application, and that has been the rule of the 
courts from that time until this. 

Mrs. Park. Mr. Chairman, may I add one word to my state¬ 
ment? Mrs. Gardener calls my attention to the fact that something 
I said may be misleading. I said that that had been the principle of 
our organization for a good many years, and then I stated that we 
had held our first annual convention. We are a new organization, 
the lineal successor of the National American Woman Suffrage Asso¬ 
ciation. The National American Woman Suffrage Association will 
dissolve as soon as certain legal requirements can be gone through 
with, and the membership will go over to the new organization, the 
National League of Women Voters. That is why I say we are a 
young organization. 

The Chairman. The committee is very glad to note the interest 
of your association in matters of this kind. The problems are quite 
difficult. 

Mr. Raker. Let me ask Mrs. Park—because this matter has been 
before the committee so much, and after many weeks of considera¬ 
tion the committee finally determined as provided on page 8 of 
H. R. 10404—whether or not, Mrs. Park, we would not be going too 
far to repeal the law which now naturalizes an alien when she mar¬ 
ries an American citizen, and whether or not we have not given 
her a safeguard now by requiring her to take the oath of allegi¬ 
ance? The marriage contract makes her a citizen now, but she can 
take the oath of allegiance and thereby become an American citi¬ 
zen. Do we not retain the status of husband and wife and the general 
law relative to our relations here and in foreign countries by al¬ 
lowing a woman, after she marries an American citizen, to take the 
ordinary oath of allegiance—a record being kept of every one who 
becomes a citizen in that way—than to try to separate it? I can 
not quite get the idea of that separation at this time. 

Mrs. Park. Mr. Chairman, I do not see that there is any differ¬ 
ence in principle. I think it is a question as to whether we shall 
go the whole length in the process of separate naturalization, or 
whether we shall go only part way. It seems to me that the phra¬ 
seology of House resolution No. 10,404, as it now stands, provides 
for the steps in that direction, but that it has not gone the full 
length. 

The Chairman. You would give the wife of an alien the right to 
make application for American citizenship in her own right? 

Mrs. Park. Yes. 

Mr. Vaile. And go through the whole process, including the ap¬ 
plication ? 

Mrs. Park. Yes. 

Mr. Box. And the examination as to fitness and everything? 

Mrs. Park. Yes. 

The Chairman. Say the man remained a citizen of Ireland, what 
nationality would the children be? 

Mrs. Park. Mr. Chairman, those are questions that are going to 
be asked. Under this act which you propose, I understand the chil¬ 
dren would in any case be required to take the oath of allegiance 
when they became of proper age, and that oath of allegiance might 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


9 


be construed as their declaration of a desire to become American 
citizens. This act would cover that question. 

The Chairman. If they are born in the United States, they are 
American citizens; if they are not born in the United States, how 
are you going to determine their citizenship ? 

Mrs. Park. Under this act they remain aliens; they can not be¬ 
come citizens unless they do take the oath of allegiance. 

The Chairman. The committee has gone over that a good many 
times, and also with regard to property rights. 

But let me read, so that we may have the record complete, the 
Anthony bill, which goes in some detail into the matter suggested by 
you. It reads as follows: 

That no distinction shall be made by any court in matters of naturalization 
of aliens, whether in declaration of intention or final application or proof or 
otherwise because of the sex of such alien. The failure, neglect, refusal, or 
inability of any male alien to become a citizen of the United States shall be 
no impediment to the wife of such alien in becoming a citizen or in declaring 
her intention or making final application for citizenship or in making proof 
therein. 

Any woman, now married to an alien, she being at the time of such marriage 
herself an alien, may make declaration of intention to become a citizen, or 
may make final application and proof for decree of citizenship, or both, upon 
the same conditions as though she was not married at the time of such declara¬ 
tion or application or proof. 

All alien women who shall hereafter marry citizens of the United States 
shall be deemed to retain their own nationality unless they shall comply with 
the naturalization laws of the United States the same as though they were not 
married. 

That all American women now married to foreigners residing in the United 
States may, after the passage of this act. resume their American citizenship 
by filing a declaration with any court having authority to naturalize American 
citizens within the jurisdiction in which she resides. 

No woman who is, or has been, a citizen of the United States by birth, or 
by naturalization by a competent court, or by marriage to a citizen shall there¬ 
after lose or be deemed to have lost her American citizenship by reason of 
marriage to an alien unless she shall affirmatively declare such renunciation 
of citizenship in a district court of the United States, or before a consul of the 
United States if without the territorial bounds of the United States or its 
possessions. Alien-born children, if under the age of twenty-one years at the 
time of naturalization of their mother, shall thereby become citizens whether 
their mother gains such citizenship by decree of court, or by naturalization 
through marriage with a citizen or through naturalization of her husband, 
under section 1994 of the Revised Statutes. 

The adoption of an alien under the age of twenty-one years by a citizen, 
according to the laws of any State or Territory, shall naturalize such infant 
alien, and if either parent who duly adopts such alien shall thereafter become 
naturalized before such infant alien arrives at majority, such infant alien shall 
thereby become naturalized. 

All acts and laws inconsistent with the foregoing are hereby repealed. 

There is the thing in plain language. 

Mr. Raker. Getting back to this other discussion, I am trying to 
get Mrs. Park’s view on it as to the justness of it. Under the pro¬ 
visions of the bill an alien woman marrying an American citizen 
could, of course, immediately become a citizen ? 

Mrs. Park. Yes. 

Mr. Raker. But, under this bill, she is required to take a fur¬ 
ther step by taking the oath of allegiance, which will be on record, 
and she will get a duplicate copy of it. Under the proposed sug¬ 
gestion to repeal that law and allow her to become a citizen in her 
own right, upon her marriage you would then have the status of an 


10 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


American citizen with an alien wife, and with native born children, 
and you would get international complications just the same. 

Mr. Siegel. Let us go one step further, judge, and let us say they 
come over here with a child more than 2 years of age. 

Mr. Raker. I saw that, but I wanted to hold on to this, first. If, 
as a matter of fact, we are giving the women the right to vote, which 
is before the committee and in the committee’s mind, we should not 
attempt to take the right to vote from these women. Their desire to 
participate in the electorate would force them by their natural pride 
and otherwise to become proficient, but we add a different step, and 
we make them take the oath of allegiance, and we would not then 
deprive them, for this length of time, four or five years, from apply¬ 
ing to become naturalized, and at the same time would not get into 
international complications by virtue of the husband being an Ameri¬ 
can citizen, and the wife during the same time being an alien, and 
the children born of the marriage during that time being American 
citizens. It seems to me we just went as far as we could to protect 
the electorate and the women who married American citizens. 

Mrs. Park. Judge Raker, do I understand that you think this law 
would be retroactive, if passed? 

Mr. Raker. No. 

Mrs. Park. You merely understand it as applying to the future? 

Mr. Raker. Yes. It would not be retroactive. 

Mrs. Park. That is my understanding of the bill. You want to 
say that you consider it a hardship imposed upon the alien woman 
from this time on, for several years, because she would have to go 
through the process for five years, you think, without the opportunity 
to be naturalized immediately? 

Mr. Raker. By the marriage and taking the oath of allegiance. 
We have been trying to give the women an opportunity to partici¬ 
pate in the electorate and to vote, and the law has been on the statute 
books now for many years. Why should we jump around now and 
deprive these many good women who marry American citizens, and 
who are rearing American citizens, from the right to vote? 

Mrs. Park. May I just answer that question of Judge Raker? I 
should say that at the present moment, Judge Raker, it might work 
a little injustice for five years, but in the long period of the future, 
for which we are providing, the act would work out justly for every¬ 
body concerned, and I personally should be willing to take the risk 
of a little hardship during the first years for the sake of the effect 
it will have later on. 

Mr. Siegel. We have here a list of hundreds of American women who 
went abroad and married. After a couple of years, getting tired and 
sick of being married to the nobility, they make up their minds that 
they want to come back to America, and then they want their Ameri¬ 
can citizenship back. As a rule, this committee here, feeling perhaps 
that they did not think sufficiently long before they got married, 
usually gives them back their citizenship. Let us take the women 
who have been here a number of years, who have married, and in that 
way have become citizens. If these women here who have thus be¬ 
come citizens were to be required to undergo the full examination 
it seems to me we would be forgetting the one thing which underlies 
the whole proposition, namely, the children, who are growing up. 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


11 


What are those children to be? Are they to be the children of Mrs. 
Frenchwoman, or Mrs. Englishwoman, or Mrs. Czecho-Slovak, or 
what? 

Mrs. Park. Mr. Siegel, you have asked two questions at once, and 
if I may, I will answer them one at a time. In the first place, in 
regard to what I think about the women who may have married for¬ 
eigners and gone to live abroad and then repented their decision; you 
have said that this committee has decided that question by returning 
their citizenship to them. I decline to take any responsibility for 
those women, and I really do not know very much about them. 
But it seems to me they ought not to be permitted to interfere with 
the application of a just principle. 

Mr. Siegel. Do you realize that in certain States from 35 to 40 
per cent of the women can not read or write? 

Mrs. Park. T come from Massachusetts. 

Mr. Siegel. I realize that. 

Mrs. Park. I have not ansAvered vour second question yet. 

Mr. Raker. There has only been one case that has been passed upon 
by this committee, and has been passed by the House, the case of 
a Avoman that came back for citizenship in order to obtain money 
and property. There is another one which has not been disposed of 
by the House. 

Mrs. Park. In regard to that matter, it seems to me the committee 
can recommend, and Congress can legislate as seems Avise in the 
future. I think it is not seriously involved in the principle I am 
trying to support before this committee. 

In reply to Mr. Siegel’s question, and a very important one, about 
the children, it seems to me that you haA^e provided for that in House 
bill 10404 by requiring them to take the oath of allegience. 
The only question Avould be during their minority, and my under¬ 
standing of the law is that during their minority they are considered 
to belong to the citizenship which their father holds, and would be 
provided for after their majority by the present la ay. I do not see 
Avhy that question should necessarily be involved in Avhat we are 
suggesting. 

Mr. Siegel. Suppose Ave go abroad for a feAv months and Mr. Amer¬ 
ican citizen and Mrs. English citizen go to France, and a child or 
tAvo are born oA^er there. France would claim its nationals, but what 
is the child ? Is it an American citizen ? 

Mrs. Park. That is where I think the State Department Avould 
have to advise us. I think that complication is not A^ery greatly 
exaggerated by the legislation we are proposing. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN JACOB ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS. 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, my bill is as folloAvs: 

That no woman Avho shall be an American citizen and a resident of the 
United States and Avho marries an alien on or after the date when the joint 
resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution extending the right of 
suffrage to women, having been ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of 
the several States, shall have become valid to all intents and purposes as 
a part of the Constitution, shall be deemed, so long as she continues to be a 
resident of the United States, to have surrendered, forfeited, or impaired her 


12 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


American citizenship by the fact of such marriage; and no alien woman 
who marries an American citizen on or after said date shall be deemed to 
have acquired American citizenship by the fact of such marriage. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I come to advocate H. R. 12749, 
and I should like at the outset to call the attention of the committee 
to the fact that there are two entirely distinct proposals involved 
in the bill. I believe in them both. I think that both ought to have 
the sanction of law, but at the same time they are independent, and 
if the committee does not see its course clear to advocate and rec¬ 
ommend to the House the adoption of both, I hope it may, never¬ 
theless, take the other of the two, I think either one alone is worth 
passing, although I reiterate my belief that both of them ought to 
be passed. 

Two statutes of the United States I should like to put in the 
record to show the foundation for what I am going to say. They 
are very brief. The Revised Statutes, section 1994, which is the 
act of February 10, 1855 (Barnes’s Fed. Code, sec. 3401), provides 
as follows: 

Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the 
United States, and who might herself be lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed 
a citizen. 

That, of course, is directly negatived by the second of my two 
proposals, namely, the proposal which appears in lines 1 to 4, in¬ 
clusive, on page 2. 

The second statute, which is the act of March 2, 1907, and which 
appears in Barnes’s, section 3402, provides, in part, as follows: 

Any American woman who marries a foreigner shall take the nationality of 
her husband. At the termination of the marital relation she may resume her 
American citizenship, if abroad, by registering as an American citizen within 
one year with a consul of the United States, or by returning to reside in the 
United States, or. if residing in the United States at the termination of the 
marital relation, by continuing to reside therein. 

That, of course, is the converse of the case where an American 
woman marries a foreigner. Even the first sentence of that statute 
would not be wholly repealed, provided the committee should report 
out my bill, because my bill provides for the additional element of 
residence, and, of course, my proposal does not exclude the reacquisi¬ 
tion of citizenship in the case of an American woman who has once 
lost her citizenship; so that the second portion of the statute, relating 
to the course open to the woman after the marital relation has been 
terminated, would continue to be effective even if this bill is adopted. 

I assume that the committee is entirely familiar with the case of 
McKenzie v. Hare. I do not propose to take very much time of the 
committee in dealing with it. Possibly some of the members of 
the committee were not on the committee at the time the previous dis¬ 
cussion was held, so that it may not be superfluous to allude to it 
very briefly. The case which I have in my hand is that of McKenzie' 
v. Hare, 239 United States Supreme Court Reports, p. 299. That 
was a case decided in 1915, and construed the statute of 1907 which I 
have just read, and declared that statute constitutional. The question 
was this: 

An American born California girl, who had resided in California 
all her life, married in California a British subject, but continued to 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 13 

reside in California; she sought to exercise her right to vote which 
she unquestionably would have had, provided the statute of 1907 had 
not deprived her of her citizenship. The sole question, therefore, 
was whether this statute was constitutional. The Suprertie Court 
held that it was and declared that the election commissioners of the 
city and county of San Francisco had properly forbidden her the 
exercise of the franchise. The opinion of Justice McKenna, which 
is the opinion of a unanimous court so far as the principles involved 
are concerned, is very interesting on this point. He calls attention 
to the fact that 66 the identity of husband and wife is an ancient prin¬ 
ciple of our jurisprudence,” to use his exact language. I think there 
is no question that that is true. It has taken a great many centuries 
to get away from the principle that in fact the wife was the chattel 
of the husband. In my judgment, the adoption of the constitutional 
amendment extending the right of suffrage to women, which is, we 
believe, only a few months off, needing only three States, I under¬ 
stand, to make it effective, removes the last barrier before the law of 
the two sexes. When that moment comes, when the right of suffrage 
is extended to women, I can not, for the life of me, see any reason 
why we should establish one set of rules for American citizenship in 
the case of men, and another set of rules for American citizenship in 
the case of women. The chattel idea has happily gone for good from 
our laws, and, as Justice McKenna very justly says, “ the identity of 
husband and wife is an ancient principle of our jurisprudence.” 

That may have been a good law in 1855. It was simply declara¬ 
tory of the common law T , and was enacted only to clear up certain 
divergences of opinion which had developed in the Federal courts of 
the United States. That may have been a good statute in 1907, 
although I confess it was something of a shock to me to find that 
13 years ago we had passed a law of that kind. But whatever the 
facts were then, the adoption of the Federal amendment, as I may 
repeat with emphasis, seems to me to remove the last reason for this 
divergence of law in the treatment of citizenship as between the 
sexes. 

Now, coming in detail to the provisions of my bill, I provide, in 
the first place, and in the first portion of the proposal, that the 
woman must be an American citizen, that she must be a resident of 
the United States at the time of her marriage to the alien, and that 
her citizenship shall be protected only so long as she continues to be 
a resident of the United States. I adopted that language for two 
reasons. In the first place, to avoid the international complications 
which Mrs. Park has referred to, and of which I fully realize the 
importance; and in the second place, as she hinted also, because I 
was not very much concerned in taking care of the title hunters. I 
should not wish to characterize those ladies too strongly. Many of 
them marry properly, and I dare say for love, but at the same time 
many of them do not, and I do not think we ought to extend the 
protection of our American citizenship, with the possible conse¬ 
quences which might result internationally, to a woman who has 
thought so little of it as to go abroad and who purposes to reside 
there permanently. So, as I say, this provision ought altogether 
exclude women who have departed from the United States with the 
intention of taking up their residence abroad. 


14 PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 

Mr. Kleczka. Does that word “ residence ” accomplish what you 
have in mind ? 

Mr. Rogers. Your suggestion would be the substitution ot the 
u domicile ” ? 

Mr. Kleczka. Yes. 

Mr. Rogers. I am not sure but what that would be an improve¬ 
ment. I have been looking up the authorities, as a matter of fact, 
since I introduced this bill, and, among others, I have consulted John 
Bassett Moore’s Digest of International Law, volume 3, pages 448- 
463, inclusive. The citation which I have given deals with the pre¬ 
cise points which are covered in this bill, namely, the effect of mar¬ 
riage between an American woman on the one hand and an alien on 
the other, or vice versa. 

Mr. Kleczka. What volume is that ? 

Mr. Rogers. This is volume 3 of Moore’s Digest of International 
Law. Then there is an exceedingly interesting discussion in that 
same volume, chapter 11, page 811 and following, on domicile, and 
Mr. Moore, who I suppose is the greatest authority upon this ques¬ 
tion that we have in this country, and perhaps that there is in the 
world, quotes with approval the following: 

Story defines the term (domicile) in its ordinary acceptation, as the place 
where a person lives or has his home; and, in a strict and legal sense, as the 
place where he has his true, fixed, permanent home, and principal establish¬ 
ment, and to which, whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning. 
This definition has been w idely accepted by the courts. The phrase “ principal 
establishment,” was and is employed in the civil code of Louisiana. Wharton 
defines domicile as “ a residence acquired as a final abode.” 

To acquire domicile in a place, there must be (1) residence, and (2) an 
intention to remain permanently or indefinitely. Where the physical facts as 
to residence are not disputed, the sole question is that of intention. 

So, replying to Mr. Kleczka’s suggestion, I should certainly have 
no objection if it was the view of the committee that the word 
“ residence ” ought to be so changed as to include the idea of domi¬ 
cile instead of residence. 

Mr. Rainey. Did you look up the definition of “ residence ” as 
applied to your bill? 

Mr. Rogers. It is difficult to get so satisfactory - 

Mr. Rainey. Domicile is usually used by the courts? 

Mr. Rogers. Domicile is more apt to be used by the courts. I 
intended the word “ residence ” to mean the same thing as domi¬ 
cile, and, according to some authorities, it does mean practically 
the same, as in the laws in my own State. But if there is any ques¬ 
tion about it, I should say that the stronger word was the prefer¬ 
able one. 

Mr. Rainey. It seems to me that “ domicile ” is the word we ought 
to use in that bill. 

Mr. Rogers. It is the better word. 

Mr. Rainey. I think so, under the definition of Webster, if you 
do not mind my reading this. 

Mr. Rogers. Certainly not. 

Mr. Rainey (reading). “ Domicile: A residence at a particular 
place, accompanied with an intention to remain there for an un¬ 
limited time; a residence accepted as a final abode, a home, so con¬ 
sidered in law. But residence is not domicile, though domicile is a 



PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


15 


logal conception of residence. Domicile is residence combined with 
intention.” 

Mr. Kleczka. I know that the Internal Revenue Department has 
difficulty in defining the word “ residence ” in reference to the taxa¬ 
tion of aliens, and they drew the distinction between resident and 
nonresident aliens; they have defined a nonresident alien as one who 
did not live in this country for a fixed period of time, but was simply 
here on a temporary mission. 

Mr. Rogers. I should dislike to regard as final authority the deci¬ 
sion of the Internal Revenue Department. They have given me five 
different opinions on one question in the last three days. But it 
seems to me the question of using the exactly right word to convey 
the legal meaning is certainly an important one, and I should not 
object to the substitution of the word “ domicile.” 

I do not want to take very much of the time of the committee, be¬ 
cause this is a highly technical subject, which has many ramifications 
which are extremely important and extremely intricate. I shall, 
therefore, give way in just a moment, if the committee pleases, to the 
experts whom we have here from the Department of State and the 
Department of Labor. I should, however, like to call attention to 
one point on the second phase of the proposal, namely, that it deals 
with the citizenship of an alien woman who marries an American 
citizen, and it denies her the acquisition of American citizenship by 
the fact of such marriage. That, of course, is intended to leave the 
alien woman coming to our shores, whether married or not, in exactly 
the same situation, as regards naturalization eligibility as the alien 
man. It seems to me it is very difficult to escape the force of the 
suggestion of Mrs. Park that there is no reason at all for giving an 
alien woman more privileges than the alien man receives. 

When citizenship carries with it a voice in the Government of 
ihe LTnited States, we certainly can not afford to give citizenship 
unless the exerciser or the to be exerciser of citizenship is possessed 
of the qualifications to enable him or her to be a good citizen. It 
is a matter of common knowledge, to refer again to the illiteracy 
question, that a very large proportion of the people who come to 
our shores from Europe are not able to read and write, and also 
that a very large proportion of those who are already in this coun¬ 
try are not able to read or write. 

Mr. Siegel. Is that quite so? The greatest percentage of illit¬ 
eracy is in the Southern States, where there is practically no for¬ 
eign born. 

Mr. Rogers. A very large percentage, I said. 

Mr. Siegel. Twenty-four per cent. 

Mr. Rogers. I repeat “ a very large percentage of them.” That 
is true, Mr. Siegel. 

Mr. Siegel. I do not agree with you. The census figures will 
bear me out. 

Mr. Rogers. It is a matter of common knowledge that there is a 
considerable degree of illiteracy. 

Mr. Raker. Will you yield to a question right there? 

Mr. Rogers. Certainly. 

Mr. Raker. For 40 years in Wyoming, 15 or 20 in Colorado, and 
some 10 in California, and the other States where the women have 


16 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


been voting, there has been no complaint by reason of the fact that 
an alien woman, on account of American citizenship, is thereby per¬ 
mitted to vote. Now, why should complaints be raised from States 
tliat have not permitted women the right to vote, and why should 
you deny these ordinary women of our country, good women who 
marry American citizens, the right and privilege of voting? 

Mr. Rogers. I think it is a protection to the country, Judge Raker, 
to exclude illiterates from the ballot, whether male or female. 

Mr. Raker. These are not illiterates. That is where you are mis¬ 
taken. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you a question about Massachusetts. 
A man in Massachusetts, in order to be able to vote, has to be able 
to read and write, has he not? 

Mr. Rogers. He must be able to read and write. 

The Chairman. Under your law, if a woman came into the voting 
right, if she had not already done so, she would have to learn to 
read and write? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

The Chairman. So it is regulated by statute of the State? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes. 

Mr. Raker. In Colorado a man must be able to read and write, 
must he not? 

Mr. Vaile. They have been voting men who are not able to read 
and write for something over 26 years. In the second place, nobody 
voices objection to the voting of people who vote now. What we do 
is to try to get the votes of the people who vote now. 

Mr. Raker. What I was asking you was if in the State of Colorado 
in order to vote, a man must be able to read and write? 

Mr. Vaile. Most of them can, as a matter of fact. 

Mr. Raker. But that is the law, is it not? 

Mr. Vaile. No. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you in regard to this second provision 
of your bill: 

And no alien woman who marries an American citizen on or after said date 
shall be deemed to have acquired American citizenship by the fact of such 
marriage. 

Now, let me read you the provision of the proposed bill, known as 
10404, on page 8: 

Ary woman who is now married to a citizen of the United States, and who 
might herself he lawfully naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen. Provided , 
That any alien woman who shall hereafter be married to a citizen of the 
United States shall not be deemed a citizen until she has taken the oath of 
allegiance provided in the third subdivision of this section. The wife of any 
alien hereafter naturalized shall be deemed a citizen of the United States upon 
taking the said oath of allegiance. 

Does that cover the situation? 

Mr. Rogers. To my mind it does not. 

The Chairman. State clearly just what you want done? 

Mr. Rogers. As I understand the provision on page 8 it requires 
the taking of an oath of allegiance on the part of the woman and 
thereby she acquires citizenship. 

The Chairman. What do you want her to do? 

Mr. Rogers. Just the same as a man must do—to take out papers 
and go through the same processes of naturalization. Of course, the 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


17 


oath of allegiance is not to be taken lightly, but it is so taken by some 
of those who take it. It seems to me that it would be most likely for 
it to be so taken by those who would be most dangerous to our in¬ 
stitutions. 

Mr. Raker. What would be the difference if she were taking it 
after marriage or if she took it before or without marriage? 

Mr. Rogers. I do not grasp just what you mean by that question. 

Mr. Raker. You say she might take this oath of allegiance lightly. 
What would be the difference as to whether she was married or a 
single woman, as to the mode or sincerity in which she took the 
oath ? 

Mr. Rogers. Not the slightest. But my suggestion is that it is 
not a great protection to the United States and that the taking of 
the oath of allegiance under this provision does not necessarily fit 
that woman efficiently to exercise the suffrage. She may be .entirely 
illiterate. She may not be able to distinguish the letters of the 
alphabet even. She may be feeble minded. 

Mr. Raker. She could not vote in this country if she was feeble 
minded or if she can not read or write. 

Mr. Rogers. She can in a good many of the States. 

The Chairman. We amended that language that no alien shall 
hereafter be naturalized who can not speak and read the English 
language. 

Mr. Rogers. Where is that? 

The Chairman. That is an amendment to section 8 of the act in 
section 5 of this proposed bill (H. R. 10404). 

Mr. Rogers. I think that is an excellent provision. May I ask, 
Mr. Chairman, if it is the intention of the committee that the 
woman alien, a woman marrying an American citizen, would not 
thereby become an American citizen if she took the oath of alle¬ 
giance, despite the provisions of section 8? 

Mr. Siegel. That is the purpose of it if she were to marry an 
American citizen. 

The Chairman. The whole thing is to Americanize the processes 
of naturalization. We undertake to provide a method by which 
citizenship can be withheld until some Americanization has been 
done. That is the point. 

Mr. Siegel. Is not the real remedy, as a matter of fact, in those 
States that do not provide that a person shall be able to read and 
write, to take away the right to vote there unless they can. As a 
matter of fact, at this very hour in certain of the States in this 
country, in four of them, one does not have to be a citizen in order 
to vote. A man with first papers may vote in Indiana for Presi¬ 
dent: in Texas for President; in Missouri for President: and in 
Arkansas for President without even being a citizen. All that is 
necessary is to take out first papers for citizenship to be able to 
vote in those States. 

Mr. Rogers. I shall not need to characterize that. 

Mr. Siegel. But they do it. 

Mr. Rogers. They do it, but no one of us can condone such a prac¬ 
tice. But that remedy is beyond our power to give to the States. 
This remedy is not a matter of viewpoint, and is based on very 
fundamental and simple principles. The distinction between the 

172210—20-2 


18 PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 

sexes under the present law is as archaic as ordeal by fire. It goes 
back to feudal and medieval times. We have perpetuated some of 
those distinctions in our laws. Perhaps there was a certain justifica¬ 
tion for that perpetuation until the suffrage amendment does away 
with the last legal barrier. After that time I confess I see no justifi¬ 
cation and no principle for continuing the sort of legislation which 
I have quoted. It seems to me we ought to treat a woman citizen 
either in esse or posse exactly u on all fours,” if I may use a rather 
awkward simile. 

Mr. Raker. Has there been any complaint in any of the States 
where women vote against the women voting, on the ground of their 
intelligence or character or otherwise, they having married Ameri¬ 
cans and having become naturalized by virtue of the marriage ? 

Mr. Rogers. That is a somewhat broad question. I happen to live 
in a State that has not yet extended suffrage to women. 

Mr. Raker. I have never heard from any source complaints under 
any circumstances of American citizens by naturalization through 
the marriage of the husband failing in their duty through the lack 
of intelligence or inability to read or write in any way, shape, or 
form. This is the first time I have ever heard the question that there 
would be any objection to allowing those women to participate in 
suffrage after they become married to American citizens. 

Mr. Rogers. If there are no other questions, Mr. Chairman, I will 
surrender the rest of my time and leave unsaid what I was going 
to say. 

The Chairman. I believe the hearings that were held at previous 
times in prior Congresses upon bills of this kind were not printed, 
or if printed, the supply is exhausted. I wish you would put in the 
record your legal references for the benefit of the committee. 

Mr. Rogers. I shall be happy to do that. 

The Chairman. The general discussion has reached a point where 
I think, perhaps, Mr. Flournoy, of the State Department, may wish 
to make a statement. If so, we will be very glad to have him pro¬ 
ceed. 

Mr. Raker. As to the first and second provisions of the first pro¬ 
vision of the naturalization act, does not that language apply to 
wealthy women who marry aliens? The second provision naturally 
applies, ordinarily and historically, as I read it, to women in ordi¬ 
nary circumstances marrying American citizens Now, why should 
we make a distinction in favor of the rich woman as against the 
woman of moderate means? 

Mr. Rogers. I think you make a distinction against the rich 
woman in the first provision. I do not agree at all with your premise 
as to the first provision. I might agree with it if I had not called 
your attention to my requirement that the woman should have been 
physically residing or domiciled in the United States when the mar¬ 
riage occurred and that the cloak of American citizenship is con¬ 
tinued in her behalf only so long as she continues to reside and be 
domiciled in the United States. I do not believe it is true at all. I 
do not believe it is a fact that the first provision serves to protect the 
rich woman as against the poor woman. The reverse is true. 

Mr. Raker. That is the historical position as far as I can gather it. 

The Chairman. Do you desire to make a statement, Mr. Flour- 
uoy ? 


PROPOSED CHANGES IN NATURALIZATION LAWS. 


19 


STATEMENT OF MU. RICHARD W. FLOURNOY, JR., CHIEF OF THE 

DIVISION OF PASSPORT CONTROL, DEPARTMENT OF STATE. 

Mr. Flournoy. I am here for whatever the committee might wish. 
I did not hear of this until late yesterday afternoon. I did speak 
to Mr. Polk, Acting Secretary, about the question in a very informal 
way. 

The Chairman. I think, then, that we will not ask you for a state¬ 
ment to-day, because in a few moments we must adjourn. We will 
be glad to have you come down later. 

Mr. Flournoy. Yes; that will be better. 

(Thereupon, at 11.45 o’clock a. m., the committee adjourned.) 


X 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



























